A conviction cannot be made under both Section 279 and Section 337, IPC for the same act; only a single sentence under the higher offense should be imposed.

1. The petitioner has filed this revision petition under S.397 read with S.401, CrPC for quashing / setting aside the judgment and order dated 15-5-2003 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, West Tripura District, Khowai in Cri. Appl. No. 1 (1) 03 affirming the judgment dated 3-1-2003 passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Khowai in G.R. Case No. 150 of 2001 whereby and whereunder the petitioner was convicted under S.279, IPC to suffer S. I. for six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default of payment to suffer S. I. for one month and further convicted under S.337, IPC to suffer S. I. for six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default of payment to suffer S. I. for 15 days. Both the sentences would run consecutively.

2. Heard Mr. B. Das, learned senior Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. A. Ghosh, learned Additional P.P. for the State.

3. The prosecution story on the basis of which the trial Court convicted the petitioner and the appellate Court upheld the same is as follows :
On 6-10-2001 at about 15.00 hours, while the daughter of the complainant, Sanjoy Deb, (PW 1) was proceeding towards the house of her private tutor, one commander jeep bearing registration No. TR - 01-2575 which was driven by the accused petitioner, dashed her on Agartala - Khowai road in front of the house of one Gouranga Deb. In the result, the daughter of the complainant sustained injuries and was immediately shifted to Kalyanpur hospital where she was treated up to 13-10-2001. As the said accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the accused petitioner, PW 1 lodged complaint with the Kalyanpur Police Station, on the basis of which, Kalyanpur P.S. case No. 37 of 2001 was registered under S.279 and S.337, IPC. Thereafter, police started investigation and on completion of the investigation, charge sheet was filed against accused petitioner for commission of offence punishable under S.279/337, IPC.

4. On receipt of the charge sheet, learned SDJM took cognizance of the offence and examined the accused petitioner under S.251, CrPC to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5. In support of its case, the prosecution examined as many as seven witnesses, but the defence adduced no evidence in support of his case.

6. At the conclusion of the trial, the learned SDJM found the accused petitioner guilty for commission of offence under S.279/337 of the IPC and accordingly convicted and sentenced the accused petitioner as noted above.

7. Having felt aggrieved by the judgment of the trial Court dated 3-1-2003, the accused petitioner preferred an appeal before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, West Tripura, Khowai. Upon hearing the learned Counsel for the parties, the appellate Court maintained the order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned trial Court in his judgment dated 15-5-2003.

8. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the judgment of the appellate Court, the accused petitioner preferred the instant revision petition.

9. Mr. B. Das, learned senior Counsel would contend that though the accident is admitted, there is no material available from the evidence of the prosecution witnesses that the vehicle was driven at a high speed and in rash and negligent manner and due to such negligence of the accused petitioner, the alleged accident occurred and the daughter of PW 1 was hurt and injured. Consequently, she was hospitalized. The learned senior Counsel also contended that the negligence is to be specifically proved by the prosecution for establishing its case as the negligence means breach of duty caused by omission to do something wh